“It may be advisable to submit [rather] than resist,” reads the brochure (.pdf), issued to airmen at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina, where nearly 10,000 military and and civilian personnel are assigned. “You have to make this decision based on circumstances. Be especially careful if the attacker has a weapon.”

The brochure, acquired by Danger Room, issues a series of guidances on “risk reduction” for sexual assault. Among others, it advises people under sexual attack in parking lots to “consider rolling underneath a nearby auto and scream loud. It is difficult to force anyone out from under a car.” A public affairs officer at Shaw, Sgt. Alexandria Mosness, says she believes the brochure is current.

While the brochure also explains that sexual assault is not always committed by people who “don’t look like a rapist” — attackers “tend to have hyper-masculine attitudes,” it advises — it does not offer instruction to servicemembers on not committing sexual assault. Prevention is treated as the responsibility of potential victims.

You know who is going to love that brochure? Rapists. Informing their victims to submit as a matter of official policy is simply a delightful inducement to go out and get some by force.

There is apparently some administrative inertia to making changes in the rape culture on air force bases.

“To any rational person this is completely backwards and shows the scope of epidemic,” Purchia added. “Fundamental reforms are needed — the reporting, investigation and adjudication of sexual assault must be taken out of the chain of command.”

That’s a step that the military has been reluctant to take. At today’s hearing, Welsh and Donley expressed concern that doing so might pose a risk to “good order and discipline,” as Donley put it. (“This is not good order and discipline,” replied Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand of New York.)

That’s exactly what I was thinking. How does rape fit into the ideal of good order and discipline?

1. Those who are perceived as “weak” in some way are used by their “betters”, which shows both groups what they proper place is
2. Being able to rape those below them is seen as a “reward” to those with power
3. Rape used as an unofficial method of discipline

I don’t think that is anything new to military organizations. Horrible and disgusting, but not new.

1. Those who are perceived as “weak” in some way are used by their “betters”, which shows both groups what they proper place is
2. Being able to rape those below them is seen as a “reward” to those with power
3. Rape used as an unofficial method of discipline

About being able to rape the people you outrank: that includes civilians. That was SOP for thousands of years. Unofficially, still is.

In related news, Arlington (VA) County prosecutor Theo Stamos says she is refusing to turn Krusinski’s case over to Air Force prosecutors, as requsted. It’s a civilian matter. Krusinski’s mistake was not groping someone on base.

I understand that of the three branches of the US military, the army and air force are heavily infested with fundagelicals – and have the highest rates of sexual assault by male members on females. (Of course, this leaves the third branch, the navy, as the only control.)

Sure, correlation doesn’t invariably imply causation, but it’s a hint that causation may be an explanation.

“good order and discipline” is Army-talk for “not sticking out”. In the Canadian Forces, there was “the one-one-nine” – “Conduct to the prejudice of good order and discipline in HM Canadian Armed Forces” (if I had a nickel for every time I’d heard that shot fired in anger, I’d have a small pile of nickels).

It was, for years, the basic way to turf queer folk out of the military: being queer was, as well as being any kind of security risk (because you could be extorted over the information, which was a problem because it was illegal, which it was because you could be extorted, and welcome to the merry-go-round of “Fuck You Queer Get Out Of My Army” which is why I wasn’t a career soldier, since changed in 1992 when they made queerness legalish), inherently contrary to good order and discipline.

So when they tell you they’re concerned about that? What they mean is, “We won’t be able to smash whistleblowers down as flat as we want to in the creation of robotic no-initiative-soldiers like we had in World War I, because war hasn’t changed at all so nor should our training methods”.

Speaking as a Cold War vet, that is, and one eternally grateful that it never went hot (but who’s pretty damn sure she’d be an atheist even in her foxhole).

Why in the hell is a man in charge of this division to begin with? Seriously? That’s a tell right there.

And yes, I am explicitly saying a man is not qualified to be head of a sexual assault division because men are overwhelmingly the aggressors. It doesn’t inspire confidence in women. Were I a victim, as a man, I’d much rather have a woman to confide to.

It may be advisable to submit [rather] than resist,” reads the brochure …

Oh, Dog! Are they doing that again? Back in the late 70s when I was in the Army JAG Corps they were giving out the same advice and had to walk it back because they were having trouble getting rape/sexual assault convictions where there was no appropriate resistance. Of course, a woman (or a man, for that matter) faced with a weapon need not resist but absent that and particularly where the assaulter and assaultee know each other, the victim should at least say “no” forcefully. A lot of the young women who were told that it might be better not to resist thought they just had to take it quietly and that is easily confused with consent by juries.

That guy’s mug shot was on the interwebs last night. Looks like his victim forgot to submit.

What’s particularly perplexing about this situation in the military is that American corporations have stringent requirements to educate their staff, and particularly management staff, on how to deal with any type of harassment, much less actual assault. I guess as with so many things, the military is exempt from the requirements of the rest of the work world.

Josh — You are most certainly right. Most male officers would probably consider taking such an assignment seriously and trying to do something about this nightmare as a career limiting move.

Why in the hell is a man in charge of this division to begin with? Seriously? That’s a tell right there.

And yes, I am explicitly saying a man is not qualified to be head of a sexual assault division because men are overwhelmingly the aggressors. It doesn’t inspire confidence in women. Were I a victim, as a man, I’d much rather have a woman to confide to.

I won’t argue with you there, except to say that even women can and do perpetuate a rape culture. Senator McCaskill has just blocked the promotion/appointment of Lt. General Susan Helms, who had reinstated a captain who had been convicted of aggravated sexual assault.

Maybe I grew up in too progressive of a state (Arizona) but isn’t it common knowledge that sexual assault is wrong and in the same category of ‘obvious’ as “don’t use a hair dryer in the shower” or “don’t run with scissors”?

Maybe I grew up in too progressive of a state (Arizona) but isn’t it common knowledge that sexual assault is wrong and in the same category of ‘obvious’ as “don’t use a hair dryer in the shower” or “don’t run with scissors”?scourge99@21

as far as most brass and SNCOs are concerned, the definition of ‘Wrong’ is “contradicting me.” The U.S. Military is one of the single strongest conservative organizations in the nation. It’s one of our primary sources of insane and inane jingoism and radical nationalism.

Maybe I grew up in too progressive of a state (Arizona) but isn’t it common knowledge that sexual assault is wrong and in the same category of ‘obvious’ as “don’t use a hair dryer in the shower” or “don’t run with scissors”?

Then again, I grew up in Arizona. And at least one man that knew realized that rape was wrong. What he was doing, though, was not rape to him.

And that, I think, is the biggest problem. And the one thing that no one wants to do. Which is help men understand that many of the things they do to women are rape — coercion, getting women drunk or high, refusing to understand the word no. The USAF could have struck a real blow for equality if they had published a pamphlet that said, to men and women, that without enthusiastic consent, you may be committing a rape and you should stop immediately. But, no, they have to go down the hoary old road of what women should, and should not, do. Assholes.

Maybe I grew up in too progressive of a state (Arizona) but isn’t it common knowledge that sexual assault is wrong and in the same category of ‘obvious’ as “don’t use a hair dryer in the shower” or “don’t run with scissors”?

Yeah, right. The catch is defining sexual assault. You’ll find that >60% of sexual assaults don’t fit the definition most people use.

Maybe I grew up in too progressive of a state (Arizona) but isn’t it common knowledge that sexual assault is wrong and in the same category of ‘obvious’ as “don’t use a hair dryer in the shower” or “don’t run with scissors”?

I was just listening to someone interviewed, a queer woman who was career military. She said it was common in the DADT days for men to coerce queer women into sex by threatening to out them : thus ending their military career. So no, I think many people (especially in the military) don’t get that sexual assault is sexual assault.

Why in the hell is a man in charge of this division to begin with? Seriously? That’s a tell right there.

Agreed 100% – even without the crime Krusinski has committed, simply putting a man in charge of the Air Force’s Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program – given that men are disproportionately the aggressors in cases of rape and sexual assault – rings all kinds of alarm bells and leaves me utterly unsurprised that the program seems to be far more concerned with putting all the responsibility for preventing rape (and, when one reads between the lines, the blame for rapes happening in the first place) on the shoulders of the victims.

And before any MRAs turn up to whine – no, this does not amount to saying ‘all men are rapists’. It is simply a demonstrable fact that the vast majority of rapists are men*, and that by putting a man in charge of rape prevention the Air Force is effectively signalling how little importance it places upon the issue of rape prevention, and in particular upon fostering confidence in rape survivors.

———————————————————————————————————————-

* Something that I ascribe to toxic, patriarchal constructions of masculinity rather than to biology.

And that, I think, is the biggest problem. And the one thing that no one wants to do. Which is help men understand that many of the things they do to women are rape — coercion, getting women drunk or high, refusing to understand the word no.
Really? The biggest (or one of the biggest) cause of sexual assault is that the perpetrators don’t know that its wrong/illegal?

The good old boys’ attitude has shown up in women with a generals rank too:
from WaPo

McCaskill is blocking Obama’s nomination of Lt. Gen. Susan Helms to become vice commander of the Air Force’s Space Command. The first woman the military sent into space, Helms was on the space shuttle Endeavor’s crew in the early 1990s. What does her appointment have to do with sexual assault? It turns out that Helms, in a previously unpublicized case, intervened on behalf of a fellow pilot and Air Force captain who had been convicted by a military jury of aggravated sexual assault.

Without publicly revealing why, she overturned the jury verdict against the advice of legal counsel, which under military justice she apparently had the power to do. In a memo that recently came to light, she explained that in reading through the evidence, she found the captain’s defense credible.

This case from Vandenburg appears to be similar to the well publicized Aviano travesty.

Really? The biggest (or one of the biggest) cause of sexual assault is that the perpetrators don’t know that its wrong/illegal?

How did you determine this?

Studies have been conducted that show that rapists will self-report on their criminal activity as long as it’s not called “rape.” Either their cognitive dissonance doesn’t allow them to understand that what they’re doing fits the definition of rape, or they don’t want to get caught but still like to talk about the rapes or attempted rapes they’ve committed.

scourge99, there has been research showing that if you ask two equivalent pools of men about their views on “rape” and about their views on “drugging a woman to the point where she is incapable of fighting back or objecting in order to have sex with her,” there is a clear trend:
(1) The condemnation rate is very different, implying that the two are not seen as synonyms,
and
(2) There’s an unsubtle thread of the latter case not being seen as “bad,” especially if she knew him, had previously slept with him consensually, had previously slept with a different man, or had flirted with him.

Oh, and there’s also research showing that if you ask two equivalent pools of men “Have you ever raped?” and “Have you ever [description of rape not including the word “rape”]?” you get very different answers.

Attackers “tend to have hyper-masculine attitudes”? Well that’s a useful warning sign to look for in the fucking military.

Hey, if there’s a link between hyper-masculinity and rape, maybe that’s an indication that, if they want to address sexual assaults, they should take a long hard look at the culture that encourages hyper-masculinity? Nah, let’s just stick with telling women to roll under cars.

He was a friend of my ex-husband’s. I was friendly with him, engaged in the conversations he had with my husband. He always seemed a little taken aback by that. Then he failed out of the army school they were both in. He had to wait to be sent to a new posting. A few days later he came by my house after my husband left for work. It was a tiny efficiency apartment, with bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen only, so there was nothing unusual about us sitting on the bed, until he started kissing me. I told him no. He kept kissing me. I tried to get away from him, and he held on tighter.

Finally I said, “Jack, if you don’t stop right now you are going to jail or you’ll have to kill me, because I don’t want this and if you rape me I will report it.”

He stopped, sat back and spluttered at me. He said, “I’m not going to rape you. I thought you wanted me. You were always so friendly.”

The thing is, he honestly didn’t think that what he was doing was rape. He was insulted that I would think such a thing of him. I also realized that to him, a woman who didn’t sit back and keep quiet while the men talked was obviously a brazen hussy who wanted him.

Now days, I think most young men aren’t quite as naive as he was. But I wonder how many rapists don’t think it’s rape if they know the woman? If she was friendly to him? This is the part that needs changing. This is what we need to make clear to both men and women. It ought to be mandatory training in how not to be a rapist. It won’t stop the ones who know damned well they are rapists, but the idiots like that guy will no longer have any excuses.

I told my nephew recently “Don’t let her get away with not saying yes or no. Tell her she has to say yes, loud and clear, or you go home and make use of your hand. After all, your relationship with your hand will be going on long after you forget her name–but don’t tell her that.”

Let me ask you this, scourge: what’s the first thing that springs to mind when you hear the word “rape”?

A violent beating, perhaps? A stranger in a parking lot?

Just recently I was driving home listening to NPR, the guy was interviewing a woman who’s twin sister was raped and beaten and later killed herself. He said, and I quote, “Now, your sister suffered an especially hard rape… Well, not that there is such thing as an easy rape, but you know, hers was bad”
And I was like, “fuck you NPR!”. I wanted so bad to call in and complain, but it is illegal to drive and call where I live. I couldn’t believe it though, on NPR no less.

I told my nephew recently “Don’t let her get away with not saying yes or no. Tell her she has to say yes, loud and clear, or you go home and make use of your hand. After all, your relationship with your hand will be going on long after you forget her name–but don’t tell her that.”

I’m all for emphasizing the importance of teaching young people (young men especially) the importance of consent, but this doesn’t sit quite right with me. Perhaps it makes more sense in the context of the conversation you were having with him.

I’m actually worried as hell about this. I have a friend whose daughter is starting at the Air Force Academy this summer. Really nice kid. I’ve tutored her in physics and served as an adviser for a technology project she was doing with some other girls for the STEM program in her school. She really wants to be in the Air Force. I’m never sure what to say to either her or her mother about this. All I know to do is hope for the best, because it doesn’t look like the USAF is going through any profound cultural changes.

scourge99, there has been research showing that if you ask two equivalent pools of men about their views on “rape” and about their views on “drugging a woman to the point where she is incapable of fighting back or objecting in order to have sex with her,” there is a clear trend:
(1) The condemnation rate is very different, implying that the two are not seen as synonyms,
and
(2) There’s an unsubtle thread of the latter case not being seen as “bad,” especially if she knew him, had previously slept with him consensually, had previously slept with a different man, or had flirted with him.

Oh, and there’s also research showing that if you ask two equivalent pools of men “Have you ever raped?” and “Have you ever [description of rape not including the word “rape”]?” you get very different answers.

Ok. Can you explain how the findings of this research can be applied to revising the air forces brochure with the goal of preventing sexual assault?

I can’t speak for the Air Force, but I was an enlisted Marine for five years and pretty much 100% of the sexual harassment/sexual assault training we got was basically organized around “don’t even fucking think about doing it, your career will be completely ruined.”

I can’t recall a single instance of being taught how to defend against sexual assault should I find myself in the victim’s shoes.

For starters, they could focus just as much on men in their sexual assault prevention program as they do on women. They can educate the men and women in the service about what rape is, what enthusiastic consent is, and what to do in a bystander situation. They can encourage reporting not just by victims but by witnesses by talking about the harmful nature of the “Bro Code” that pressures men to excuse the behavior of their peers. They can make changes to the criminal prosecution system of the military that prevents senior officers from squashing reports or overturning convictions.

Focusing on the behavior of women alone is doing nothing but wasting time. What’s needed is to change the behavior of men, so that a culture that gives other men the cover they need to rape without consequences is dismantled.

Either their cognitive dissonance doesn’t allow them to understand that what they’re doing fits the definition of rape, or they don’t want to get caught
Ok. So how is a sexual assault brochure 2.0 going to overcome cognitive dissonance or people who willfully commit crimes?

For a start, it will make it easier for people who have been raped to come forwards while making the people who know someone who has raped less likely to excuse their behaviour. Rapists want it to be normal to rape, it makes it easier to get on with the raping.

Yes to everything @mythbri said in #46. If all personnel were educated just on the pernicious trivialisation of coercion-incidents via the Bystander Effect and how to overcome the effect by recognising and rejecting a bunch of default socio-sexual assumptions*, so that they intervene when they see somebody being isolated when incapacitated etc, that alone would make a huge difference to the risk/reward calculus for premeditating rapists evaluating their chances of getting away with rape via plausible deniability etc, because it would also educate those more genuinely confused about consent issues regarding boundaries that truly consensual sexual activity simply doesn’t cross, and that leaves the premeditators with far less wriggle room for casting doubt upon their victims.

*default socio-sexual assumptions = rape culture, but you don’t have to pre-derail the discussion by using the rape-culture terminology to explain how widespread and how wrong these assumptions are.

@scourge99
“The biggest problem” is definitely overstating it, but there’s no denying that there’s a fair bit of double-think going on on this subject.

As for what to do, I think the main thing is to talk about it; openly and often. The main thing to overcoming the cognitive dissonance is to not allow people to maintain it. Confront them with it over and over and over again until they’ve got no choice but to look the facts in the face.
Such a brochure would be an obvious way to start. Follow it up with mandatory courses and repeat those courses at regular intervals. The “don’t be that guy” campaign appears to have had an effect, so it’s not a useless effort.

If we can get the “normal” guys to understand, we’ll only have the outright psychopaths to deal with and they’ll have much less cover to hide behind. I suspect there’s going to be a kind of tipping point of awareness where suddenly it shifts and you’ll see sexual assaults drop like a rock.

While i agree with some of your suggestions, none of them seem to actually address the problems YOU mentioned which were (1) cognitive dissonance and (2) people who don’t care about the rules (criminals).

BTW, Thomas at the Yes Means Yes blog has an link-rich post on how rapists look and act just like everybody else right up to the point where they’ve decided they can get away with rape, and how that plays into other people denying that rape incidents could really truly be rape when it’s been committed by someone they know and like socially – Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Premeditating criminals care very much about the rules. They plan their crimes very carefully to fall between the cracks of likely detection and establishing reasonable doubt if caught, so that the risk of consequences for their crimes is minimised.

That’s exactly why programs which make it more likely for people to recognise coercive/exploitative interactions as non-consensual, and intervene or report those interactions, make both detection of rapists and their likelihood of being viewed as fully culpable by a jury more likely. If they view the risks of being not just caught but also convicted as higher, then they are far less likely to commit the crime.

Even if you believe, as I do, that the predators are not confused and can’t be educated, there are two good reasons to believe that consent education can make the climate better. First, because there are rapists who are not that small percentage of predators. Second, the predators absolutely depend on what I call the Social License to Operate, the climate that explains away or excuses what they do in certain circumstances, calls it not rape, calls it the survivor’s fault, minimizes it and lets him get away with it. Without that, the rapists can’t do it over and over because they’d get caught, excluded from their social circles, disciplined by commanding officers or expelled from campus, and they’d either have to stop or end up in prison.
[…]
The Social License to Operate is the set of beliefs that make rape seem like a continuation or extension of normal sexuality, instead of an aberration and personal violation. By normalizing rapists and rape, by blurring the lines between rape and sex, we create a culture where instead of responding to the crime like we should, there’s always room to argue for and or excuse or mitigate the rape and the rapist.

No matter what a rape survivor did, there is a set of pre-existing attacks on the survivor and excuses for the rapist. (These are mostly in the form of sexist tropes because the kind of rape that gets talked about, and the kind that is most common, is when men rape women. That’s not all rape. When women rape or when people who are not binary gendered are raped or when the victims are boys or men, the most common response it that it is never talked about at all.) These tropes operate to give the wily predators cover and let them weasel out of accountability for what they did.

There is a proverb that covers this: “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” What this means is that you just because a solution is imperfect and will not address all possible cases, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be pursued anyway. The idea of educating people so that they know that taking advantage of someone who is not able to refuse is rape. It ends the “but I didn’t know that was rape” excuse.

No one is saying that this will end rapes by those who either don’t care about the rules or don’t believe they’ll be caught. That this will not eliminate 100% of rapes is irrelevant. Insisting that we should do nothing until there is a solution that is 100% effective is tantamount to saying that we should do nothing.

While i agree with some of your suggestions, none of them seem to actually address the problems YOU mentioned which were (1) cognitive dissonance and (2) people who don’t care about the rules (criminals).

I disagree. Comprehensive (good and accurate) education about what rape is and what enthusiastic consent is will help to eliminate the cognitive dissonance for potential rapists who believe that their methods of getting sex (coercion, drugs/alcohol, etc.) are not rape. If it is made very clear exactly what constitutes rape, coercion and sexual assault then they will know that their behavior is unacceptable.

To address the (2) people you mentioned, this will give them less cover for their deliberately predatory behavior. Will it eliminate all opportunities for that behavior? No, but they will at least know that their chances of escaping consequences or having their crimes excused are significantly decreased.

I am currently in the AF, and am a woman. I think I can provide some salient details to this fiasco. I have no idea where on earth they got that brochure, as it is just horrible. Thankfully, the SAPR training we receive is much, much different than that now.

Unfortunately, we only have 1 mandatory briefing a year on sexual assault. Mine was just a couple weeks ago, and it was with a crowd of about 200 folks, of mixed gender. It used to be separate by gender, but I guess they gave that up. We also used to have another separate briefing called Bystander Intervention Training, but that’s gone away too. However, for the first time since I’ve been going to these briefings, they finally changed the definition of consent from a “No means No” to, “Get a YES!”. They spoke of enthusiastic consent, and that a lack of a no does NOT mean yes.

They also gave the current stats of rape/sexual assault. How many women/men will be raped, the number of rapes that go unreported, how rape is most often committed by a person the victim knows, etc. They went over all the various forms of sexual assault/harrassment from leering to full on violent rape, and everything in between. They spoke about alcohol and other drugs, and how that voids consent. They spoke about how a person can rescind consent at any time.

They showed videos (yeah, they were corny, but what can you do…) made by the AF with various scenarios, of sexual assault and the situations that can lead to them. This was also the first time they’ve ever done a video of a man-on-man crime, as opposed to the man-on-woman crime we usually see. This was also the first time they really drove home the bystander effect. It was made very clear that if you see something happening, it is your duty to stop it. We were instructed in various ways: immediately confront the aggressor, pull aside the victim, create a distraction, or call for help.

They then went into the various ways a victim can get help and report a crime.

So, it seems they’re saying the right things, but it’s just not sticking. In EVERY SINGLE briefing I’ve gone to regarding SAPR, a man has stood up and asked “So, you’re saying if a woman is drinking she can’t give consent? What if it’s only two or three drinks? How many drinks can I make her drink before it’s rape?” Every goddamn time! I want to tear my hair out. Also, every time I’ve been in one, some douchebros will invariably start making rape jokes in the middle of the presentation.

So, yeah, while we’re being told the right material, the culture is so, so fucked up. I am constantly bombarded by shockingly sexist/misogynistic language and behavior at work. And I’m a fucking officer! I stop what I can and shut down what I can, but I know it happens behind my back. In my unit alone, we just had a guy convicted and sent to jail for raping three of the women in my squadron. Currently, we have a sexual assault case open for a different man in the unit. I had a horrible moment one day when chatting with some of the other women, and the topic of discussion came around to rape, and it came out that every single one of us had been raped. Every one.

I wish we could change the culture. I do everything I can, but with the AF still heavily male-dominant and with an entrenched culture of hyper-masculinity coupled with hyper-religiosity, I often feel at a loss. Like we’re losing. The fact that the head of SAPR was only a Lt Col, who only had a handful of SSgts beneath him, speaks volumes.

Is there any kind of action that we civilians can take that might help change the culture? Are there lobbying groups or victims’ services that we can donate to?

Honestly, I don’t think so. The military is pretty insular, if change is going to occur I think it must be from the inside. I do think we (the military) shifts along reaaaaal slow in response to change in the nation’s concerns at large. It took the President to repeal DADT–we would have continued to do nothing about it until then. So, I guess just vote like hell for Democrats and liberal politicians who will have the guts to make the policies that will have an impact on the DoD.

I won’t deny that there was a lot of sexism floating around, and I worked in the air wing which is about as far culturally as you can get from you 03s without leaving the Corps. It’s been a few years so I might not be remembering things accurately, but the impression I always got was that they were talking only to potential aggressors. And nobody ever got raped at my units while I was there (save an Okinawan civilian, and you can imagine how that went down for the perp), so I can’t offer an example of how that was handled either.

I was also a politically conservative Christian when I was serving, so I have no idea how different I would see things if I did it again now.

I got the chance to go to Okinawa for a few weeks in ’08. When we got there, the first thing they did was brief us to stay the hell away from the Marines. We weren’t to talk with them, hang out with them, approach them, anything. If we encountered any out and about we were to remove ourselves from their presence immediately. They were marked as a huge threat to us. When walking around the city, I noticed signs everywhere of uncle sam. Curious, I got closer. Underneath the man’s stern gaze and pointing finger was, simply, “DON’T RAPE!”

I can’t imagine what scale the abuse must have been occurring at for that sort of response to be necessary for a sister service.

something tells me that if someone got raped in your units while you were there, you might have never found out, if you were really a conservative Christian. Would rape victims really trust a conservative Christian with that information?

Well, then I’m confused as to what your point is. Why is it that you think cognitive dissonance is a problem? We all hold conflicting ideas, and this is one of the ways we resolve them. If anything, the purpose of that kind of training material is to induce a sense of cognitive dissonance to force people to acknowledge the new information. If they’ve already been raping, then they’re faced with the choice of acknowledging themselves as a rapist or finding some excuse for why their prior behaviour does not count. For those who have not, it encourages them to either reject or integrate this new information into their model of what rape is.

This is the same Air Force which punished Academy cadets who didn’t attend “voluntary” Christian services and whose Commandant said that he was “Team Jesus first”.

Their rape advice? Wonderful!
Suppose you do what they tell you and submit.
Afterwards you file a complaint.
They ask “Did you resist?”, and you answer “No.”
Moments later you will be the one up on charges for filing a false complaint.

Well they got that bit right, at least. Advice on what to do in the event of a rape or sexual assault isn’t too bad (rolling under a car isn’t a bad idea, I’d never have thought of that) but it is sadly lacking in advice on what bystanders can do if they see a sexual assault, and on clarification on what constitutes sexual assault and rape aimed at potential rapists.

But “just submit”? That is beyond the pale. Sure, it might be sensible advice if your primary objective is to avoid physical injury but I’d have thought “carry pepper spray”, “knee him in the balls” or “fuck it, use your sidearm” would be better.

@scourge99
Then I suggest you save your time and spend it composing a post with a bit more content than… all the ones you’ve posted on this thread so far.

I think part of the problem here is that you’re not being terribly clear on what your position actually is. You write in one-liners and it’s not particularly productive. Take some time to lay out your thoughts in detail. People are a lot less likely to misunderstand you that way.

If you’re not sure about what to write, I suggest responding to ck’s post #68. That would be a good place to start.

@scourge99
As far as I’m concerned, you haven’t made a single substantial, productive or relevant comment in this entire thread. You don’t get to be snide with people who have. You don’t get to complain about being strawmanned and also refuse to engage with people who are directly asking you what your position is.

If you have a point, make it. If not, then I’m sure a person as intelligent and discerning as yourself can find much better things to do than posting here.

Since you seem to be in a teaching mood, let me reciprocate. Go look up the term “strawman” and then get back to me about what you’ve learned.

Hint: it’s got nothing to do with farming. ;p

BZZZZZZT

Sorry! All attempts at dismissing arguments because “straw man” must be accompanied by an explanation of:

1. That the actual argument is

and

2. What the false version of the argument is

and

3. The important differences between those.

“Straw man!” is a popular buzz word these days but in order for it to be valid you can’t just shout “straw man!” and expect everyone to be like, Ohhh, of course, he said straw man so obviously he’s right and the other guy is wrong. So explain yourself.

Intelligent and genuine responses will get genuine replies. Which is why i gave genuine responses to Esteleth and mythbri. The rest will get ignored, one liners, etc.

Wow, my feelings are so hurt. You ignored my contribution so I guess that means you think I wasn’t intelligent or genuine.

“Straw man!” is a popular buzz word these days but in order for it to be valid you can’t just shout “straw man!” and expect everyone to be like, Ohhh, of course, he said straw man so obviously he’s right and the other guy is wrong. So explain yourself.

Is it bad that i blame Thunderdunce for this?

In any case, Scourge99, I fully agree with Sally Strange (as I usually do): Put up or shut up.

I don’t have the time or desire to correct every idiot on the Internet. That includes you.

The fact you believe you have the levels of knowledge needed to correct anyone here on this subject is laughable. For evidence, see every post you have made so far. They are rife with misunderstandings and utterly without substance.

Let’s recap: first, all the way back at post #28, you seem to think that the suggestion that people be educated on what is and isn’t rape means that we think rapists do not know that rape is wrong. This is most emphatically not what was said. Then, after having conclusively proven to you (a painful process just to read) that most rapists do not understand that what they are doing is rape, you make vague noises about agreeing with mythbri’s suggestions re. education while also nitpicking because “Oh noes! It won’t stop all rape!”. And then when ck explains why the fact it won’t stop all rape doesn’t matter, you erroneously accuse them of strawmanning you, and do so in such an obnoxiously patronising manner that it seemed almost calculated to force people to assume that you are an arsehole. You then appear to have set out to confirm that assumption.

You clearly think you are clever. I disagree, and I doubt very much that I am the only one to do so.

I told my nephew recently “Don’t let her get away with not saying yes or no. Tell her she has to say yes, loud and clear, or you go home and make use of your hand. After all, your relationship with your hand will be going on long after you forget her name–but don’t tell her that.”

I’m all for emphasizing the importance of teaching young people (young men especially) the importance of consent, but this doesn’t sit quite right with me. Perhaps it makes more sense in the context of the conversation you were having with him.

It doesn’t sit quite right with me, either, but I think it’s not the “clear yes or no part” and is instead the “or else” part. Just tell someone you aren’t continuing unless you get a clear yes or no. I think adding reasons why falls on the spectrum of manipulation. But, yeah, maybe in context of the conversation et cetera.

In this particular out-of-context excerpt, the “clear yes or no or else I’m going to go home” edges into blaming the girl for being a cocktease (which has its own problematic history) and has the ring of “if we aren’t having sex it’s not worth my time to hang out with you.”

Good explanation. I see the point now. If “no answer” is an implied “no” and if “no answer” means that you’re going home, then it quickly ends up being the equivalent of saying “if you want to hang out, you’ve got to put out.”

I’m pretty sure that’s just a rhetorical tool, as in “It’s better to go home and have a wank than it is to have sex without clear consent”. I doubt otrame intended their nephew to quote them word for word :)

for someone who’s supposedly ignoring supposedly unintelligent comments, scourge is spending a hell of a lot of time commenting on them, instead of finally making their point; or explaining the goalpost shift from “how do you determine this” to “but how will a brochure fix it”; or explaining why the answers they’ve received are somehow insufficient

When a person claims to be able to read the mind of another and put words in their mouth, it often reveals more about themselves than it reveals about the other person.

Again, if you think you are being misrepresented, and you expect us to believe that you are being misrepresented, then the onus is on you to explain what you really think vs. what others think you think.

@scourge99
Well, it’s not as if we can rely on you to tell us what you’re thinking. You’re still refusing to do that. We have to draw conclusions from your behavior. In fact, you’re not even denying that Thumper’s characterization of you is correct. You can’t even be clear on that.

Have you actually provided any information about your views in this thread? The most I can find is a vague reference to agreeing with “some” of mythbri’s suggestions, I can’t find anything at all.

You’re lazy, Scourge. Does that bother you? Are you okay with that? Proud?

Anyway.

Esteleth @44:

scourge99, there has been research showing that if you ask two equivalent pools of men about their views on “rape” and about their views on “drugging a woman to the point where she is incapable of fighting back or objecting in order to have sex with her,” there is a clear trend:
(1) The condemnation rate is very different, implying that the two are not seen as synonyms,
and
(2) There’s an unsubtle thread of the latter case not being seen as “bad,” especially if she knew him, had previously slept with him consensually, had previously slept with a different man, or had flirted with him.

Oh, and there’s also research showing that if you ask two equivalent pools of men “Have you ever raped?” and “Have you ever [description of rape not including the word “rape”]?” you get very different answers.

Ok. Can you explain how the findings of this research can be applied to revising the air forces brochure with the goal of preventing sexual assault?

That discussion was never abandoned. All of the subsequent comments have been related, though sometimes indirectly. Especially the parts about bystander effect. Did you notice those posts, or did you just get out your “NOT INTELLIGENT OR GENUINE” stamp and go along your merry way, like the lazy boy you are?

Given that this is a military situation, maybe brochures/videos that draw parallels like “If you saw your comrade being accosted by the enemy, and you could help, wouldn’t you? Of course you would. So, when you see your female comrade being harassed by some man who looks like he wants sex that she doesn’t want, help her.”

Research shows that a disproportionate amount of rapes are committed by men who commit multiple rapes, and use the social room afforded by rape myths to operate. Deny them that room by focusing on the men who don’t rape, by teaching them to recognize what those myths are and refute them.

1) This goes right back to my original reply: isn’t it common knowledge that sex with a passed out person is wrong and in the same category of ‘obvious’ as “don’t use a hair dryer in the shower” or “don’t run with scissors”?

You seem to be operating on the assumptions that this type rape occurs because some/alot/most rapists don’t know its wrong and if we just took the time to enlighten them it would put a dent in rapes..

While i certainly agree that there are probably some out there who are genuinely ignorant of such things and informing them with a brochure may change their behavior, i don’t think its a very large percentage or even a small percentage. But if you have some reason or evidence to think otherwise I’d be happy to change my mind. The research you cited before does not do that.

2) I agree that putting the relevant facts about rape and consent are useful. But you continue to fail to connect the dots between the research you cited and modifying the brochures to address the problem of rape. Show your work.

isn’t it common knowledge that sex with a passed out person is wrong and in the same category of ‘obvious’ as “don’t use a hair dryer in the shower” or “don’t run with scissors”?

No. It is common knowledge, however, that women are for sex. And if a woman fails to protect herself, then she’s fair game, especially if she is one of “those” women.

You seem to be operating on the assumptions that this type rape occurs because some/alot/most rapists don’t know its wrong and if we just took the time to enlighten them it would put a dent in rapes.

Actually, it is more that this type of rape occurs because rapists (who know what they’re doing) are taking advantage of societal messages surrounding rape and using them as cover.

But you continue to fail to connect the dots between the research you cited and modifying the brochures to address the problem of rape.

The overwhelming majority of rapes are committed by a man against a woman he already knows, and a substantial amount of the grooming/setup are public. A lot of this grooming/setup is recognizable as such by bystanders. The key is to get those bystanders to intervene.

This goes right back to my original reply: isn’t it common knowledge that sex with a passed out person is wrong and in the same category of ‘obvious’ as “don’t use a hair dryer in the shower” or “don’t run with scissors”?

This was addressed. No, it is not common knowledge, or at least, not common enough. If it were common knowledge, we could expect several things to be true, which are not currently true. To wit:

1. Juries and judges would not be swayed by defense arguments about the victim’s previous drinking or drug use.

2. Kids in towns like Steubenville would not sit around while their classmates raped an unconscious girl. Nor would they gleefully pass photos of the rape around. Nor would the judge in the case warn teenagers, not against raping people, but against recording evidence of the rape.

3. The reporting rate for rape would be higher than 40% (already a lot higher than it was 30 years ago).

4. The conviction rate for rape would be a lot higher than 3%

Now please explain why you are pretending that your comment there wasn’t addressed.

I foresee an endless merry-go-round of Scourge pretending to be dumb and people explaining with ever-decreasing levels of patience, until someone finally gets too annoyed to be polite, followed by Scourge’s triumphant flounce accompanied by mansplaining pronouncements about how rude people here are and how he’s going to go somewhere to find some rational people to talk to.

This goes right back to my original reply: isn’t it common knowledge that sex with a passed out person is wrong and in the same category of ‘obvious’ as “don’t use a hair dryer in the shower” or “don’t run with scissors”?

so in other words, you haven’t actually read a goddamn word of what people were saying to you, since this has already been addressed.
no, they don’t “know”. meaning either they don’t want to admit it to themselves, or they actually don’t know. and that goes both for rapists and bystanders. so putting it out there in black-and-white which behaviors definitely are rape takes away the ignorance, or the excuse thereof.

You seem to be operating on the assumptions that this type rape occurs because some/alot/most rapists don’t know its wrong and if we just took the time to enlighten them it would put a dent in rapes..

what was that about mind-reading you said just a bit upthread…?
Anyway, no: some rapists rape because they don’t think what they’re doing is rape, but many more are predators who use the fact that many bystanders don’t think what they’re doing is rape (or rape-rape) to get away with it.

But if you have some reason or evidence to think otherwise I’d be happy to change my mind.

given that you’ve already been given evidence and reasons, I don’t actually think that’s true.

But you continue to fail to connect the dots between the research you cited and modifying the brochures to address the problem of rape.

incorrect. the connection has been demostrated here and in the links already provided to you. what’s your excuse for claiming that has not happened?

You seem to be operating on the assumptions that this type rape occurs because some/alot/most rapists don’t know its wrong and if we just took the time to enlighten them it would put a dent in rapes..

You’re ignoring the effect on bystanders. It’s not just about reaching the rapist. It’s also about reaching all the people who could have done or said something to prevent the rape, but didn’t. It’s about reaching the people who investigate and prosecute rapes. It, in a larger context, is about reaching the people who make excuses anytime a case of rape comes up in the media and the people who sit on the jury.

In addition to that, correcting the miscomprehensions that allow some men to pretend that what they’re doing isn’t rape will stop them and dispelling these myths will also have an effect on those who are simply bastards, because it makes it harder for them to operate.

In other words, this one basic approach will stop those that can be stopped, make it harder for those that refuse to stop, strengthen preventive measures and prosecution efforts, and signal support for victims so they feel more comfortable stepping forward and reporting. It may not be perfect, but it looks pretty damn good to me.

Also, the “Don’t be that guy” campaign (which I mentioned earlier) has had a clear effect, which suggests that this approach does work. It’s not just hopes and dreams and pie-in-the-sky theories; we’ve got good reason to think that this will actually reduce the number of sexual assaults.

@mythbri
I’ve also had the conversations where people recount that one party they went to in high school where that one girl was passed out and people were “doing things” to her, and no one said anything. This actually made someone cry when retelling it- we had been talking about Steubenville and they told me this story, and said how they wished they had said something.
As I told a four year old: If you want to play catch with someone, ask them, wait for them to say yes. if they don’t say yes and you toss the ball, it is not playing catch, you are throwing the ball at them. Not fun.

It is common knowledge, however, that women are for sex. And if a woman fails to protect herself, then she’s fair game, especially if she is one of “those” women.

i don’t think this is common knowledge. What makes you think it is?

Actually, it is more that this type of rape occurs because rapists (who know what they’re doing) are taking advantage of societal messages surrounding rape and using them as cover.

Once again, where did you get this information from and how can i verify myself?

The overwhelming majority of rapes are committed by a man against a woman he already knows, and a substantial amount of the grooming/setup are public. A lot of this grooming/setup is recognizable as such by bystanders. The key is to get those bystanders to intervene.

What’s any of that got to do with the research you cited before ” showing that if you ask two equivalent pools of men about their views on “rape” and about their views on “drugging a woman to the point where she is incapable of fighting back or objecting in order to have sex with her,” there is a clear trend…”

You are just all over the place and can’t seem to stay on the same argument with surreptitiously changing arguments.

the behavior of people faced with a rape case; cops, hospital workers, attorneys, jury, witnesses, newspeople etc. who put the victim on trial for wearing the wrong thing, giving “mixed” signals, not saying no loud enough/often enough/etc.

in short: rape culture.

Once again, where did you get this information from and how can i verify myself?

already linked to earlier in thread. what is your excuse for re-asking this?

What’s any of that got to do with the research you cited before ” showing that if you ask two equivalent pools of men about their views on “rape” and about their views on “drugging a woman to the point where she is incapable of fighting back or objecting in order to have sex with her,” there is a clear trend…”

You are just all over the place and can’t seem to stay on the same argument with surreptitiously changing arguments.

no, you just can’t follow an argument to save your life. it’s quite simple: teach people to tell rape from non-rape, and bystanders will act and interrupt grooming for a rape

It is common knowledge, however, that women are for sex. And if a woman fails to protect herself, then she’s fair game, especially if she is one of “those” women.

i don’t think this is common knowledge. What makes you think it is?

This makes me think you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. You can verify this simply by paying attention to what people are saying when cases of rape come up in the media.

If a prostitute is raped, you know somebody’s going to come along and argue that since she sells sex, she can’t be raped. If a woman was raped, but was drunk at the time, somebody will argue that it’s her own fault.

Have you really not noticed this?

What’s any of that got to do with the research you cited before

This is not “all over the place”. This is the very same argument we’ve been making since the beginning.

1) Many rapes are committed against victims that the aggressor knows
2) Much of the lad-up to the rape occurs in public
3) This lead-up to rape is recognizable as such, if you know what to look for (testing boundaries, pushing boundaries, checking to see how she responds to boundary violations, etc)
4) If bystanders know that this is rape and know to recognize the lead-up, then they can also intervene and prevent the rape. They can help the victim escape a dangerous situation.
In addition, the victim will have an easier time appealing to others for help because she can trust that they won’t dismiss her; they’ll know.

You seem (oh no, I’m mind-reading) to think this is all about getting the rapists to agree to stop raping. It’s not. It’s much more involved than that.
What does the research have to do with it? If you don’t think what’s happening is rape, then why should you step in and stop it? Lack of awareness allows the predators wiggle room; it’s less likely that they’ll be stopped and if they are, they’ve got plausible denial.

Surely, you’re not unaware of all the many, many cases where the guy says “I thought she wanted it.” Hell, in the Steubenville case, there were people who seriously suggested that the victim wanted to get raped, despite being unconscious at the time. Why? Because she had agreed to drink alcohol with the rapists earlier in the evening.

This is not an unusual thing and nobody who had the least idea would ever claim so.

“The fact you believe…”
“you seem to think that… ”
” You then appear to have set out to… ”
“You clearly think you are…”

When a person claims to be able to read the mind of another and put words in their mouth, it often reveals more about themselves than it reveals about the other person.

Let’s put these quote fragments back in context, shall we?

The fact you believe you have the levels of knowledge needed to correct anyone here on this subject…

You do believe that, you said yourself that you “don’t have the time to be correcting every idiot on here”, which clearly implies that you believe yourself to be capable of correcting people on here.

…you seem to think that the suggestion that people be educated on what is and isn’t rape means that we think rapists do not know that rape is wrong.

You then appear to have set out to confirm that assumption.

You are aware what the phrases “seem to” and “appear to” mean, I presume? In this context it means that your actions and/or words have led to the impression that the suggestion that people be educated on what is and isn’t rape has led you to believe that we think rapists do not know that rape is wrong, and to the impression that you have set out to prove you are an arsehole. The second quote is of course intended to be ironic; it would be very strange if someone purposefully set out to prove they were an arsehole.

English: how the fuck does it work?

You clearly think you are clever.

Again, an inference drawn from your actions and words. Here’s the thing you don’t seem to be getting, Scourge; drawing inferences based on another person’s behaviour is not reading minds, and quoting exactly what they said in order to back up those inferences is not “putting words in their mouth”. It’s a common occurence which happens every day and which much of human social interaction is based on. Your oh-so-clever rebuttal has served to do nothing more than confirm my initial impression of you, namely that you are an abject moron.

You seem to be operating on the assumptions that this type rape occurs because some/alot/most rapists don’t know its wrong and if we just took the time to enlighten them it would put a dent in rapes..

It is not a fucking assumption, as has been proven to you many times Scourge, you fucking lackwitted moron.

It’s not so much that they don’t think it’s wrong as they don’t think it’s rape. Because rape is always carried out by a stranger in an alley, right? So shagging a drunk sranger when they’re unconscious is wrong, sure, but it isn’t rape. Then there’s the further “grey areas”, like she’s intoxicated but still coherent. Where’s the line between “had a drink” and “too drunk to consent”? What if she’s your girlfriend? If she doesn’t want you she wouldn’t be going out with you, right? So is that rape?

This is what people need educaing about, because a lot of people do not count rape as rape unless it’s the stereotypical stranger in an alley.